My God, My God, why have you forsaken me ?

[mfewell]

Words from the cross by Christ. Can I add a tilt to them. They are supposed to be a fulfillment of the OT, but what if, when Christ uttered them from the cross, that they were more than that and utterly true, i.e. God the Father had momentarily forsaken his son ? Imagine for a moment that Christ in hanging there did indeed take all the badness of all time on his shoulders ? Can you imagine a pain any worse and a love any higher ? Just a thought, but by heck it sticks with me.

[blinkyblinky]

.....If I take a fawn and tie its feet, and start torturing it for no other reason than it amuses me, what can science say? Not a lot, I think. Can it say that what I do is wrong? I don't believe it can. Does religion do this? Yes it does. Religion deals with morality. I'm not saying horrible crimes haven't been committed in the name of religion - they undoubtedly have. I'm not saying religions are consistent, either internally or compared with one another. But religion per se is undoubtedly closely connected with questions of right and wrong. Can we say that any action is ultimately right or wrong - objectively so - just by appealing to the laws physics? I really do believe that torturing a fawn simply for amusement would be an absolute wrong, a real wrong, I don't mean a social wrong, and science cannot help me here.

And this is not a little unimportant detail of life. The question of what is right and wrong and why - how to live a good life - is absolutely crucial, a big big big question, and it's not the only one where science must remain silent.

Also, when I say "darkness" I'm not talking about horror film creepy sinister darkness and I don't think "bestial fear" is a necessary response to it. As I already mentioned, I'm not making any claims for any religious doctrines, I'm just saying - uncontentiously I think - that people, here and now, have to deal with a lot of unknown in this life, and in many situations where important, crucial decisions have to be made, scientific knowledge - wonderful though it is - science has nothing to say.

[mibn2cweus]

blinkyblinky, The Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not bind and torture cute furry animals, no matter how amusing this may seem. I�m sorry but I could not find this among the Ten; another preconception on your part? Shame on you you evil evil sinner. (I feel a need to put a slant on things occasion to bring out a point).

If you are truly interested in morality, I suggest you begin by burning the Ten Commandments, if not just for the amusement than because they do not establish a rational basis for morality. Although a few of them; �Thou shalt not steal�, �Thou shalt not bear false witness� and �Thou shalt not murder� at first glance may seem reasonable enough they do nothing to explain why we should not do these things other than the treat of disfavor with a make believe character whose primary interest seems to be to insure we don�t find pleasure in the life and world he supposedly created. Religionist�s have certainly burned their share of historical documents simply because it was easier than refuting them.

If you truly wish to know right from wrong than it is time to make an appeal to your reason. You are correct in stating that �this is not a little unimportant detail of life. The question of what is right and wrong and why - how to live a good life - is absolutely crucial, a big big big question�. No, science is not directly ascribed with determining ethics but I know of no reason why it shouldn�t at least be applicable. You seem to understand that science is very good at serving its purpose but if morality is religions purpose, I believe they have failed miserably. As for the Arabs, I doubt that it was science which failed them but rather their reliance on religion to guide them morally.

[mibn2cweus]

So just for the hell of it, why don�t you drag this question into a Science topic and let�s see where it leads, shalt we? I�m sure this idea will **** some people off as science is �holy ground� for many but science needs ethics to and I know I�ll be there. So how about it; ready to rumble with some serious minds and perhaps with some in need of a little moralizing?

Some suggestions: For religious views, (such as regarding �The Ten Commandments�), on morality you might elect to give science a break and submit these in Body and Soul. Also it might help to check your facts before making accusations. If in question, a question might be in order. Finally you might give some thought to phrasing your questions in a form that is amenable to being answered. Of course I am not the AB police and as far as I am concerned you can do whatever you please, or not. I wish you success in your endeavors to gain knowledge.

[Jude123]

Sorry to interrupt this thread, but this is a message for Mimififi and Clanad. Remember me it's 'simple' Jude. Just to let you know, as requested, I have completed my Alpha Course. I have met some very nice people from different walks lf life and beliefs. I am sorry to say that I have not been converted to Christianity but perhaps become a little more humble, if that's the word as I found myself being a bit forceful with my arguments which was quite unlike me. Anyway, I was asked if I would attend church and I gracefully declined. Just thought I'd let you know.

[mibn2cweus]

When our means of survival (reason) comes under attack, it is reasonable to take a defensive posture.

[saved]

How can you compare a fictonal character i.e. harry potter? with the suffering of a real character jesus christ ??

[blinkyblinky]

I don't think morality is religion's purpose, but the two are obviously closely connected.

The reason for this is that questions of right and wrong in a purely physical (as in physics) world don't appear to have any foundation.

If I try to say that sticking needles into babies' eyeballs (sorry for this horrible image) is wrong, what can I appeal to to justify this statement? Can I appeal to the laws of physics?

In a purely physical world, science can locate the baby, it can locate me, it can describe the motion the needle, it can even locate the baby's pain receptors, but where is the wrongness? Can science locate that?

I can't see that there can be any meaningful distinction between right and wrong in a world that doesn't contain something other than just physical matter.

So the conclusion follows:

Either, there is no absolute right and wrong, or if there is, there must be some kind of moral aspect of the world which has so far eluded science.

I use the word "aspect" because the word "god" comes with so much baggage attached that many people seem to fall into a kind of apoplectic fit when confronted with the word. Feel free to attack christianity, but it's not really relevant, because I'm not defending it.

I'm not talking about specific religions or specific gods, an old man in the sky with a white beard, whatever - I'm talking about an authoritative basis for the distinction between good and evil - a moral aspect to the universe, whatever that means.

I know that certain actions (such as sticking needles into a baby's eyeball other than for medical purposes) are fundamentally wrong, absolutely wrong, wrong in a big sense of the word. I can't see how someone who doesn't believe in something bigger than science can make the same statement with the same conviction.

[ronniemonda8]

I can.

Notice how all the things we consider 'wrong' are either counterproductive to the continued successful existence and procreation of our species, ill-fated for society as a whole, or ill-serving for the particular group we happen to be in.

If there was some 'absolute moral norm' it would defy all of these, pervasively, at least once.

That never happens. Why?

Hint: there is no absolute moral norm.

[foolish01]

sorry 'eastender' but arent both of them fiction?

[blinkyblinky]

ronniemonda

You say you can, but you don't. You're talking about "useful", I'm talking about "wrong".

Here's a concrete example: I put a fawn into a cage and stick needles in it for amusement until it bleeds to death.

By your definition, I haven't harmed society, my species or my group, therefore I haven't done anything wrong. Do you really believe this? You can say you do, just to win the argument, but do you really?

[El D]

Perhaps you would like to detail the exact religious qualms you have about hurting animals? Is it really a religious revulsion you have blinky? I for one know that I would never do something like that, yet I need no absolute moral authority to tell me so.

While it appears that theists somehow have an absolute moral authority, let me ask you - if I told you to do something and said it was good just because I said it, would you do it? Would you think it was good? Perhaps if I could demonstrate my own goodness, you might be convinced? What if I revealed that I personally do not actually abide by those tenets, I just tell you they are good? Does that somehow give me moral authority? The short answer is no. A being which kills millions, murders the innocent, is jealous and angry, commits the majority of humanity to a torturous existence, causes untold grief and suffering through his lack of action - does that being have moral authority?

[mibn2cweus]

Just a quick primer. Morality stems from choice. Where there is no choice there can be no determination between right and wrong. Morality follows from what makes choice possible, a reasoning living entity. Morality then should be based opon the life and well-being of such creatures and how they can cooperate with each other in mutually beneficial relationships.

[blinkyblinky]

Let's forget about religion for one moment and about what choices are beneficial to who.

The example I gave - torturing a fawn for amusement (although it doesn't need to be a cute little animal, it just makes for a more powrful image) - would it be wrong? Yes or no?

Of course the answer is yes. I don't need to talk about religion or benefit or choice or offence or revulsion or whatever to be able to give that answer - it's wrong because it's wrong.

If we lived in a world where everyone did this kind of thing all the time, then by your arguments it would be ok - if morality is just linked to social norms, conventions, reason, choice, opinion, then the word "wrong" doesn't carry any more weight than the words "revolting", "offensive", "distasteful", "useless" etc etc. Surely that's not what we mean when we talk about right and wrong. Surely we are talking about someting more fundamental.

Attacking organised religion for being hypocritical or inconsistent or whatever doesn't solve the problem. In a world without some kind of moral aspect (I don't use the word "God" in case I cause offence) then the words "right" and "wrong" seem to lose much of their force.

Where can science locate the quality of "wrongness" in the universe? Is it hiding on one of the moons of Saturn?

To say that it can't because the universe doesn't have a moral aspect - wrong is just what people decide is wrong - is a bit of a cop-out, because you could say you believe this like ronniemonda (where did his post disappear to by the way?) but the proof is in the action, and no one acts like this is true.

[mibn2cweus]

Blinkyblinky: Let's forget about religion for one moment and about what choices are beneficial to who.

The example I gave - torturing a fawn for amusement (although it doesn't need to be a cute little animal, it just makes for a more powrful image) - would it be wrong? Yes or no?

Of course the answer is yes. I don't need to talk about religion or benefit or choice or offence or revulsion or whatever to be able to give that answer - it's wrong because it's wrong.

Whether something is actually right or wrong, it�s wrong for you if you believe it�s wrong. This is where reason and choice comes into the picture. Ask yourself why this is wrong and you will be on your way to developing a moral code. Morality is not applicable to planets or moons or rocks or bananas or the colors of the rainbow. Morality is the collection of the rules we use to govern our choices and consequently our behaviors. Whether you have taken the time to define these rules for yourself or not you still choose/act according to what you believe is right or wrong based on your values.
By defining these rules we make them available for inspection and refinement and establish a basis for applying these rules to a wide range of applications.

[mibn2cweus]

If we lived in a world where everyone did this kind of thing all the time, then by your? arguments it would be ok - if morality is just linked to social norms, conventions, reason?, choice?, opinion, then the word "wrong" doesn't carry any more weight than the words "revolting", "offensive", "distasteful", "useless" etc etc. Surely that's not what we mean when we talk about right and wrong. Surely we are talking about someting more fundamental.
So let�s start by defining the fundamentals. What is socially acceptable in not necessarily what is moral. If this were the case morality would be (and to some extent is) in a state of chaos. What is considered right/wrong in one society is almost always considered wrong/right by another; (and this unfortunate confusion applies largely to organized religions as well). So the question remains what is morality, why and who decides?

[mibn2cweus]

Attacking organised religion for being hypocritical or inconsistent or whatever doesn't solve the problem. In a world without some kind of moral aspect (I don't use the word "God" in case I cause offence) then the words "right" and "wrong" seem to lose much of their force.

Where can science locate the quality of "wrongness" in the universe? Is it hiding on one of the moons of Saturn?
To say that it can't because the universe doesn't have a moral aspect - wrong is just what people decide is wrong - is a bit of a cop-out, because you could say you believe this like ronniemonda (where did his post disappear to by the way?) but the proof is in the action, and no one acts like this is true.

Now you are on to something. The right or wrong of our choices and actions are ultimately determined by their consequences and outcomes so then reality is the final arbiter. Even if we believe something is right or wrong we still have a choice as to whether we do the right thing or the wrong thing. This is why we need to choose our moral code carefully so that it is not only apparently correct but do able (livable) as well.

[mibn2cweus]

So let us develop a moral code that is one that we all can live by and one that all reasonable, life respecting, people loving, people will choose to follow as well; sounds easy enough, doesn�t it? If and when you�re ready to make a commitment to take this on I may be able to help but You have to make the choice for yourself! Yes or no?

Just to clarify what may at first appear to be contradictory let me point out that although are choices are influenced by our beliefs we may not always do what we believe is right. The reason for this typically is that we sometimes hold two conflicting beliefs and find it necessary to act before this conflict can be resolved.

Also since we are getting a bit off topic you may choose to start a new thread elsewhere. If this is the case then perhaps it would be nice to let any good folks still following this thread (lol) where you have gone (in a peculiarly un-ronniemonda like fashion? Sorry, I missed your post before it got pulled).

[El D]

Yes absolutely personal choices and their consequences on the world around you are the only way to judge morality. For instance, the old dilemma posed by the two drowning men, one a famous scientist, one your father (let us assume you had a happy childhood) - who do you save? Ultimately, it doesn't matter what your reasoning behind the decision, one will die and one will live according to your moral persuasion. I actually stumbled over a quote from Aristotle which I think it relevant

'I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.'

Through rational thought and conscious choice of the way in which we want to live our lives, our actions define our moral code. We are judged on our actions, and I agree with you Blinky when you say the vast majority of humanity never bring to life the moral code they claim to live by.

It seems to me as though you are looking for an easy answer, a pre-defined set of rules you can fall back on as being right. I and am sure mib have only come to our own conclusions through long periods of deliberation and coming to terms with ourselves and the reality around us. There is no easy answer as to how to conduct yourself through life blinky, there is no moral Authority to validate the difficult decisions - we have only our choices and their results. This means we have to think extremely carefully about what we choose, because each action we carry out is a personal definition of how we want to live - therefore why would I want to subscribe to a moral code thought up by someone else? How can I have the same degree of conviction if I have not come to exactly the same conclusion through my personal decision making process? Taking personal responsibility for our choices and actions is a major step in becoming a member of a civilised human race.

[mibn2cweus]

El D, thanks for that �from Aristotle�, He certainly was a brilliant contributor to philosophy. Although there were some errors in his thinking, much of what he said those centuries ago still holds true today.

I want to make a clarification of something else I stated before; "science is not directly ascribed with determining ethics but I know of no reason why it shouldn�t at least be applicable"; this was meant only in the context in which it was used. The branch of philosophy that deals with morality is the science of ethics, (this is a distinct science, not to be confused with other sciences such as the science of physics or the science of mathematics).

I would also like to make it clear (to any who may have any doubt) that I am not an ethicist. As always, prove all things prior to your own acceptance and use so that it may serve you well!